/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10804978
I treat it as a bargain.

Think I have no free will, and put a limit on the amount of effort I give in life?

Or assume I have free will, and drop all excuses not to put down herculean effort towards my ambitions?

The answer is obvious, you need to assume you have free will, or you are deceiving yourself with excuses.

>Think I have no free will, and put a limit on the amount of effort I give in life?
False equivalency

>>10804978
You don't actually make decisions. Your brain decides you should take a shit before you even realize you wanted to take a shit.

>>10804979
>Think I have no free will, and put a limit on the amount of effort I give in life?
That doesn't make any sense. Effort still exists without free will. It's just that the reasons for effort will be actual real world physical causes instead of magical flapdoodle.

>>10804978
cumbrains don't think free will exists because they lost it.

>>10804993
So every decision we make is comparable to a bodily function?

>>10804998

Except it happens all over.

Just look at, say, the muzzies and "inshallah" or "if God wills it." No need to plan or prepare anything, because whatever happens was preordained by Allah to happen.

If I fire my AK in the air, god will make my bullets strike the enemy the same as if I were to aim.

Imagine that but without the skywizard. No use putting effort in if you don't feel like it, if it was going to happen it would happen.

>>10805002
Lol this would be applicable if I hadn't overcame my sex/porn addiction. I'm off the porn and premarital sex, try again.

>>10805008
Wikipedia the synopsis of Descartes's Error then get back to me.

>>10804978
>What's /SCI/'s verdict on free will?
define "free will"

>>10805002
Cite sources and go into detail about all the points in your image with hard facts, right NOW.

>>10804978
>What's /SCI/'s verdict on free will?
The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

>>10804978
free will is complete bullshit if you give it more than 2 seconds of consideration.
Just because an action was taken after reasoning does not mean there was any choice involved, because the whole process of how that reasoning took place, inside your brain, is completely out of your control, thoughts just come to your the same way feelings/pain come to you.

>>10805016
>Wikipedia
got any non-popsci sources?

>>10805037

If I think about my dad dying of a massive heart attack and all the anguish that would cause my family, do I feel sad because my electrical impulses in my brain trigger chemical reactions that make me feel sad or did I just physically control the chemical reactions that fired the impulses in my brain to think it?

When it comes to original thought, which drop of rain is responsible for the flood?

>>10805008
>No use putting effort in if you don't feel like it,
Free will not existing doesn't eliminate feelings either. Again, all it means is behavior is a real physical thing that comes out of actual physical causes. I don't see why not believing in retarded magical violations of causality should lead you to stop taking showers or showing up to work.
The idea you would expect this makes it sound like you're assuming free will does exist and are then paradoxically imagining you would freely will yourself in a deterministic world to stop investing effort in living.
I think anyone who thinks they believe in determinism and then becomes apathetic will ironically do so because they have a faulty model of determinism in their head leading to their apathetic outcome.
A person with a coherent model of determinism would be led to continue investing effort in their life because thoughts and feelings still exist just as much with physical cause and effect reality as though would in some magical bullshit world where humans are somehow exempt from cause and effect.

>>10805058
>If I think about my dad dying of a massive heart attack and all the anguish that would cause my family, do I feel sad because my electrical impulses in my brain trigger chemical reactions that make me feel sad or did I just physically control the chemical reactions that fired the impulses in my brain to think it?
The former. I don't understand how this is in doubt.

>>10805008
>No use putting effort in if you don't feel like it,
Free will not existing doesn't eliminate feelings either. Again, all it means is behavior is a real physical thing that comes out of actual physical causes. I don't see why not believing in retarded magical violations of causality should lead you to stop taking showers or showing up to work.
The idea you would expect this makes it sound like you're assuming free will does exist and are then paradoxically imagining you would freely will yourself in a deterministic world to stop investing effort in living.
I think anyone who thinks they believe in determinism and then becomes apathetic will ironically do so because they have a faulty model of determinism in their head leading to their apathetic outcome.
A person with a coherent model of determinism would be led to continue investing effort in their life because thoughts and feelings still exist just as much with physical cause and effect reality as they would in some magical bullshit world where humans are somehow exempt from cause and effect.

>>10805063

>people with the RIGHT determinism will

Do exactly as they would have done whether they believed in determinism or not because they would have had no choice to do so or not do so.

Why expend any more extra effort? If you were going to do something you would have done it?

Push out an extra rep? Ha, not an exercise in willpower or a choice in discomfort for long term gain, even incremental, you would had no choice to do so.

>>10805024
Define "define"

>>10804978
imagine the smell

negatory, captain

read derk pereboom on blameworthiness and praiseworthiness, both of which are illusions that help us get on in tribal envrionments

http://www.stafforini.com/docs/pereboom_-_living_without_free_will.pdf

>>10805067

Heard it here folks. Thought is stored in the pituitary.

>>10805058
"you" didn't control anything any step of the way, there's no controller, you don't think thoughts, thoughts come to you.

Why argue about it?

If you were to believe in free will, there is no use arguing it. You would believe or not regardless dependent on your form and function.

If you could be persuaded one way or another, you would have been persuaded, there's nothing new under the sun.

It's not like you're making an independent evaluation of the arguments and choosing based off of any internal system. It's just the natural outcome of pressing the start button on a giant meat robot.

>>10804978
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

>>10805090
Ignore this post and read this post instead >>10805080

>>10805081
>Heard it here folks. Thought is stored in the pituitary.
What?

free will deniers are worse than climate change deniers

>>10805109
Do you have any proof of the existence of free will? There is plenty of proof of the existence of climate change.

>>10805109
It's less about denying "free will" and more about not denying cause and effect.

>>10805116
As a free will denier, cause and effect are problematic in their own righ-... never mind.

>>10805119
Just make an argument. You aren't being cute or funny.

free will is a spectrum

>>10805116
>It's less about denying "free will" and more about not denying cause and effect.
Cause and effect doesn't apply to everything.

>>10805126

Vaccines cause free will.

Muh clamp.

Muh circumcision.

>>10805131
>Cause and effect doesn't apply to everything.
What doesn't it apply to? And why doesn't it apply in those cases exactly?

>>10805133
>What doesn't it apply to?
The universe.

>>10805136
this

>>10804993
Imagine to control manually EVERY body function

>>10805137
again, doesn't imply freedom is real

>>10805136
Just come out and explain what you're thinking here.

>>10805115
prove the existence of mind and what produces it first then you further prove its abilities

>>10805142
>Just come out and explain what you're thinking here.
If cause and effect is universal, then what caused the universe?

>>10805139
The argument some COMPATIBILISTS make is that you only need a tiny sliver of room for freedom to be able to claim freedom. You don't need EVERY function to be controlled freely.

>>10805145
>If cause and effect is universal, then what caused the universe?
Nobody really knows anything outside the context of our known universe.
My personal baseless speculation is that there's a larger context reality that unlike our universe has existed eternally and universes like ours spawn from it like bubbles from the ocean.

>>10805146
Which by the way I disagree with. That sliver would have to be so microscopic as to be totally insignificant, almost meaningless. What glorious freedom can be found in such a sliver?

>>10805148
>there's a larger context reality that unlike our universe has existed eternally and universes like ours spawn from it like bubbles from the ocean.
That 'larger context reality' would be part of the universe, by definition.

>>10805149
With many hands make light work. You can cause great outcome with the slightest of effort.
So that if you make the effort you put in a catalysis for many and persistent extortions to your goal.

>>10805151
No, there's more than one definition for "universe." If it makes you feel better though you could qualify "universe" with "observable."

>>10805155
>No, there's more than one definition for "universe."
Assume the most common definition.

>If it makes you feel better though you could qualify "universe" with "observable."
Most of the universe is unobservable.

>>10805157
The word universe denotes the totality of all that exists. Should there ever be more that exists than we were heretofore aware of, this is now part of the universe.

>>10805074
As the person you responded to said, humans are not exempt from cause and effect. The choice to push out an extra rep has the effect of building a little bit more muscle than not doing so. Someone who wants more muscle and is capable of pushing out more reps would choose to do more reps because it has the effect that they desire. The point is, regardless of how someone feels about determinism, if you want more muscle you will do more reps and if you don't want more muscle you will do less or none.
>Why expend any more extra effort? If you were going to do something you would have done it?
Because you want the effect. For example, I want to look attractive so I will work out.

>>10805188

>would choose to

Say that again.

I decided I should make a thread about this in light of the sheer ignorance in the other thread. Derk Pereboom explains everything you need to know about free will (or lack thereof). He is one of the pre-eminent philosophers in the world on the subject.
http://www.stafforini.com/docs/pereboom_-_living_without_free_will.pdf

>>10805199
>philosophers
neither scientist nor mathematician

>>10805188
An account of the Sophist, Hippias.
Hippias, a /know it all/ is credited with originating the idea of natural law.
So much was Hippas well versed, that Plato saw him as vain and arrogant.

For Plato to have fallen into the trap set by a Sophist built of pure Rhetoric, and Virtue.
That the great preacher of those mechanisms and knowledge paths.
Became fork tonged when seeing proper practitioner of his own ideals.
That it's correct adaptation, kicked all of Platos dogs and called them fuck off.
The birth of dismissing the person to reject the knowlege they present.

Hippas being a Jack of of trade, master of none. Only espoused one thing that transcends technological advance.
According to Hippias, natural law was never to be superseded as it was universal.
He saw natural law as an entity that humans take part in without pre-meditation.
He regarded the elite in states as indistinguishable from one another
Thus they should perceive each other as so.

To take part without pre-meditation. This is somewhat a definitive statement. That there is no free will...
What could draw such a conclusion?
A tale of the Titans.
Prometheus, Trick at Mecone.

The Gods asked for negotiation of the division of sacrifice.
It's thought that Prometheus successfully tricked Zeus.
That Zeus had chose the lesser valuable division. This is in my eyes false.
This is often considered a "Man from clay" myth.
I see that this is a metaphorical instance alluding to Mans lack of foresight, despite forethought.
That Man was given a choice. To divide sacrifice. The Gods dividends of the realm they have control of.

Prometheus was disposed to preconception and limited scope. Prometheus only saw the literal interpretation of what was to take place.
That the Gods asking Man what would be fair share between their realms was just mere materialism. Not a offer of ascension.

>>10805200
>admitting ignorance

free will is an open problem

>>10805204
>>admitting ignorance
Who are you quoting?

>>10805203
Prometheus saw that if he carved a beast into two piles, that he can give Man a desirable cut.
The flesh he tore from the carcass, savoring all offal.
He took the entails to cover the meat pile to appear as if foul. The bones were polished with fat, so they glint like gems in comparasen.

Zeus was not fooled in the least by this. In fact Zeus was angered. That a Titan act in place of Man, and as if in Mans best interest.
To lie in Mans stead, to act as if he was knowledgeable of outcome before full knowledge of the implications. of the task were even made evident of the things that were to be decided.

Zeus had to take the 'trick' pile in order to punish Prometheus for his self-importance pretense to aspiration. That Man was without ability if the Titans weren't to act for them.

Zues too the bones. As they were the bargaining token to control of the structure. The fat polished upon the bones gave ability to make the structure slippery, to be without grasp.
With this division between the Gods and Man. Zues was able to make it so that Prometheus was punished most befittingly.
For his shortsighted. The structure's power was twisted so that Prometheus was to forever bound to a rock, where each day an eagle, the emblem of Zeus, was sent to feed on his liver, which would then grow back overnight to be eaten again the next day.

That's what I've conferred from that story.
But it's only made of relevance in the face of greater understanding of what it is I presume to /exist/.
To be in and of a system, that to act upon that system as but just a man is to assume the lower potential can exert a force on the more massive mechanisms intertwined.
That is in essence "Manifest destiny".

>>10805205
I could have told you that by the amount of debate there is about it

>>10805211
It's a safe bet that if there is a plurality of opinions on a given subject, no one giving their opinions has the faintest notion of what they are talking about

*blocks your path*

>>10805210
Tripfag fuck off

>>10805205
we should be asking ourselves why we insist on free will
the same way that people used to insist on heaven and angels up above

>>10805215
Yeah.. You're going to have to explain this interjection.
I only chanced upon Greek myths when being labeled to end up like Prometheus when making an analogy for higher dimensions.

A 'lesson name' would help a lot.

>>10805230
wrong guy

>>10805221
Don't you like long winded explanations to roundabout mentions of Potentiality and actuality?

>>10805027
Who discovered free will? What's the evidence?

>>10805245
>Who discovered free will?
Socrates

>>10805251
If free will exists then why do people succumb to addiction?

>>10805276
I'm just gonna mention Behavioral sink and rodents. I've got a Meth pipe to hit. I trust you can be left to study in my absence?

>>10805276
>If free will exists then why do people succumb to addiction?
Because free will is a spectrum, and addicts are on the lower end

>>10804978
Until there is evidence that mental processes are non-physical and therefore not subject to cause and effect, there's no reason to think free will exists. Yet, one has to live as if free will exists, otherwise life is absurd.

>>10805757
Non-physical like what? Numbers?

>>10805341
Lol so if you go down the spectrum enough you'll find no free will?

>>10805005
No hes just stupid

>>10805027
talking out of your ass

>>10805188
This is not true, I can't build muscle regardless of the number of reps I perform

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550609351600
>Do philosophic views affect job performance? The authors found that possessing a belief in free will predicted better career attitudes and actual job performance. The effect of free will beliefs on job performance indicators were over and above well-established predictors such as conscientiousness, locus of control, and Protestant work ethic. In Study 1, stronger belief in free will corresponded to more positive attitudes about expected career success. In Study 2, job performance was evaluated objectively and independently by a supervisor. Results indicated that employees who espoused free will beliefs were given better work performance evaluations than those who disbelieve in free will, presumably because belief in free will facilitates exerting control over one’s actions.

>>10806072
Sounds interesting. Shame cant read it though. Wondering if they looked at things like neuroticism and self efficacy.

I also wonder what was asked and think that poasibly looking at a lay persons personal philosophy is different from someone lookinh at free will in an academic manner.

>>10805037
are you talking about the bicameral mind concept? is it the same as greek's daemon?

Belief in any sort of creator being, makes belief in free will impossible. As we would still he doing what the creator wanted.

Free will can only exist in a godless world. Where life is just a matter of lucky chemical reactions getting more complex over time.

>>10806304
>As we would still he doing what the creator wanted.
[citation needed]

>>10805157
Unobservable due to physical or technological limitations, or otherwise?

>>10806072
How many people really don't believe in free will though? I would think that people that don't believe in free will make up a much smaller and much more intelligent on average group. The average person when asked the question will say "of course it exists, I can do whatever I want, see I'm about to make up a random word: doobaloobadingdong! See I have free will!" How many people are reading the Stoics during lunch time at the factory? Seems like it would be very hard to get an accurate study on the differences between the two subsets of people.

this is still being debated? why are people so averse to the realisation that they are automatons? there is nothing wrong with being an automaton. embrace it

So many psychological features of human beings are now explained, i.e. predictable, i.e. have nothing to do with freedom. There is so little precious room left to stake out an area of our psychology that we can pretend is "ours" or "belonging to our own volition" let's say. But because this area is so small, it stands to reason that it too will be explained away in the next few decades. Prepare your anus.

>>10806011
He didn't say this. He implied it weakens.

>>10806492
It weakens or withers away to nothing.

>>10806476
I have the Turing test solved just to post this as proofs.

>>10805341
You are describing self-control. Self-control is the biggest reason people falsely believe in free will. You can better think of self-control the way you think of a trained dog. Even though the dog has been trained, no one thinks of it as exercising it's "freedom" to dance around some poles. No, on the contrary, people think of the dog as the trainer's puppet. When you have more self-control, you are actually LESS in control than if you had none.

>>10806504
I should't have used the word "less" at the end of that, implying yet another gradient. The larger point is that you are equally unfree if you have self-control as you are if you don't have self-control. Self-control =/= freedom.

>>10804978
>>10804979
>>10804998
>>10805037
>>10805082
>>10805109
>>10805126
Those who believe in determinism are faced with there life being determined.
Those who believe in free will are faced with there life being free from Determinism.
Those who "believe" have already surrendered there freedoms and choices.
The more you believe the more you've just killed your identity of self. However there is opportunity for you to escape your belief systems and think for yourself.

>>10806496
No it would become infinitesimal there more things we think about that are worse then addiction

>>10805071
The debate isn't about all this gobbledygook about free will being a magic special force, fren
It's about whether free will is deterministic to a reliable enough degree that it can basically be considered not free
We simply won't know for sure until we have the technology to unpack all that's inside the human mind

If some random-enough operation in the brain were able to cause a cascading change in what the next state of the whole brain would be, and it would be hard to forecast what this change might be, then we could essentially define our will as being free, couldn't we

>>10806520
>However there is opportunity for you to escape your belief systems and think for yourself
So you're saying this is the belief you hold?

>>10806520

According to Hippias, natural law was never to be superseded as it was universal.
He saw natural law as an entity that humans take part in without pre-meditation.
He regarded the elite in states as indistinguishable from one another
Thus they should perceive each other as so.

When you believe in things
That you don't understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition aint the way

>>10805088
Based

>>10806531
So what you're saying is that "free will" is just randomness, similar to the way that quantum information can, for our interests, be considered random? So all bodily functions are either controlled by deterministic properties or random chance? Sounds like we are all in agreement, then

>>10806531
>If some random-enough operation in the brain were able to cause a cascading change in what the next state of the whole brain would be, and it would be hard to forecast what this change might be, then we could essentially define our will as being free, couldn't we
No, that's wrong. A random number generator has no free will. Randomness is not free will.

>>10806559
This isn't a belief, this is what I know for fact

>>10805157
>Assume the most common definition.
No, obviously if you're talking about something beyond the scope of the universe then your definition for "universe" isn't "everything in existence."
The idea of multiple universes isn't "uncommon." And I'm certainly not the first person to mention the idea of there being a lower level context outside our own universe that didn't have a beginning and is the source that non-eternal / beginning having universes like our own spawn from.
I don't really care what you call it, your complaint is pedantic and serves no purpose. It's not like the idea is made clearer by calling everything about it "the universe" and then having to come up with some new name for our own universe.

>>10806624
>No, obviously if you're talking about something beyond the scope of the universe then your definition for "universe" isn't "everything in existence."
"beyond the scope of the universe" is a meaningless notion.

>>10804978
The absence of free will is the idea that your actions are deterministic to an external observer.
But no such external observer can not exist.
So the question is incoherent.

>>10806623
Looks like youve solved it then, I expect you to publish and collect your nobel.

>>10806623
Kek. Oh, the irony

>>10806671
>"beyond the scope of the universe" is a meaningless notion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Not sure why you're having such a problem here.
"Universe" can mean "everything that exists."
It doesn't NEED to mean that, and in fact plenty of perfectly legitimate academic research has gone into a variety of concepts that in one way or another involve a scope beyond our own universe.

>>10806750
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
popsci garbage

>>10806531
If the factors that control our decisions are outside of our control then we do not have free will. Even if those factors are random and can't be determined as long as we can't manipulate them then we aren't free.

>>10806703
>But no such external observer can not exist.
Why?

>>10806750
>plenty of perfectly legitimate academic research has gone into a variety of concepts that in one way or another involve a scope beyond our own universe.
Yeah and none of that research has resulted in any evidence.

>>10806791
>Yeah and none of that research has resulted in any evidence.
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>>10804978
I dont have free will since my will is limited to my brain and bodies capabilities

I have to adhere to my brains signals and wants and my bodies needs, I am a slave

Einstein doesn't think so:

>Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.

>>10806713
Solved what?
>>10806747
What irony?

>>10806829
>Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control.
What determined the beginning?

>>10805008
> "if God wills it."
https://youtu.be/RdE5fvX9FdA

>>10804978
Reduced by clamping and vaccinating.

>>10806879
>Reduced by clamping and vaccinating.
and circumcision

I think Sam and Co created an easily disagreeable definition of “free will” and argue against it to create controversy.

Controversy keeps them interesting and thus both marketable.

>>10806520
not an argument

>>10804978
You're lead by a script ,if you wake up you can replace that script with another then the choices will be automated according to the script you choose, but the script you choose was predetermined , So i guess a bit of both.

>>10807069
My intention wasn't to make an argument kek I was making a statement.

Free Will is fake. End of discussion.

>>10804978
Descartes did not accept his own "cogito ergo sum". I don't recall anything about free will, since nothing can be proven without using the mind and senses, which must then be used to prove themselves.

>>10807397
Why should I listen to your opinion? You didn't use reason to come up with it. It was fated since the creation of the universe.

>>10807436
I made a whole thread about my reasoning, but then I realized I will be banned for it since it's technically philosophy. But math and logic and philosophy are intimately intertwined.

>>10807429
I was referring to a book called 'descartes error'

>>10806791
>Yeah and none of that research has resulted in any evidence.
I never claimed we had evidence for it you retard. I'm just arguing against your bullshit claim that "universe" has to mean "everything there is" and can't ever mean "our own observable universe that began billions of years ago from an infinitely dense and high temperature point."
>popsci garbage
It's a wikipedia article about the concept of "multiverse" in general. It isn't pop sci garbage because it isn't any one thing at all. It's a collection of different sources you can go check out and read more on yourself if you want. It isn't a source in itself.
As for the general concept of there being more than just our universe, that can be pop sci but it doesn't need to be. If it's Deepak Chopra talking about how your consciousness guides you through different universes, then that's retarded nonsensical pop sci. If it's analysis of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data to see if our observable universe has features consistent with models of collision with other universes then that's not pop sci.
Anyway I think you guys are missing the part where I wrote:
>>10805148
>Nobody really knows anything outside the context of our known universe.
>My personal baseless speculation is that there's a larger context reality that unlike our universe has existed eternally and universes like ours spawn from it like bubbles from the ocean.
As in I made no such claim about this idea being supported by evidence. It was just my personal preferred speculation on how our universe has a beginning yet everything we know of is some function of physical cause and effect relationships. One obvious answer would be that there's more than just our universe and some lower level context to reality that unlike our universe never had a beginning and has always just existed in some non-static state that gives rise to universes like our own.

Free will is a learned behavior. It needs to be practiced before you're capable of acting on anything greater than biological impulse. It's simply the capacity to resist temptation in pursuit of a higher goal. This is the only definition that has any meaning in an unknowable physical reality.

>>10804978
you have to be a turbo brainlet to dont realise metaphysics cand be argued or studied

>>10807429
cringe

>>10807643
That actually makes me somewhat angry. You'd better explain yourself, immediately.

>>10807647
>nothing can be proven without using the mind and senses, which must then be used to prove themselves.
so you are telling me you need explanations to why that is pure cringe? just try to reason what you said

>>10807668
Do it if you can.

>>10807679
saying things completelly unrelated using vague terms trying to sound smart? nah you owe me the proof that what you said even makes any sense

>>10807639
Scientists actually have evidence claiming there is no free will.. read about phineas gage.

>>10807683
I've become upset. Provide proper explanation immediately and properly or the conversation has ended.

The statement is very simple. All of your sense of reality is a framework of relative truths, ie, truths that are reliant on other underlying truths. The fundamental irreducible axiom is your senses, and with that, your mind and its faculties. You cannot use anything to prove the validity of your mind because it requires using they themselves, ie, self referential. And inescapable.

>>10805025